Jury finds Kevin Spacey didn’t assault actor Anthony Rapp

Oh and by the way. The jury did not find that Spacey did not assault Anthony Rapp. They found that Anthony Rapp had no proof. Not remotely the same thing.

Okay but ask yourself this. Supposing you are a child or a woman who was sexually imposed on by a rich, powerful famous adult. You finally recovered to the point that you could speak up and tell what happened. You go through the horrible process of being questioned, your body is a crime scene, and when you finally make it before a judge and jury, you are told you have no proof. There will be no Justice for you, no redress and your predator will continue his career in the limelight. How would you wish this to go? As a woman who has experienced sexual imposition by bosses, adult relatives etc, I would want to be believed. I would want someone to stand up for me or at least stand with me. 

I am troubled by the ability of victims to falsely accuse. But honestly , the predators generally get the sympathy of the court because they are white men being judged by white men. The one common case. Of accused predators being presumed guilty is when they are Black men ( see Emmett Till )

Maybe there is no good answer here but until one appears I am leaning toward believing the victims.

I lean toward believing the victim, too, if it's purely one person's word against the other.  But that inclination would have to be put aside if I was on the jury.  Even if I believed the victim, I'd need evidence of some kind before I could side with them in a verdict.
In the specific case here, if Anthony Rapp, soon after the assault, had made some kind of diary entry or had just confided in confidence to a friend what happened, such testimony years later might have tipped the scale.  And in a civil case, the accuser only needs proof better than fifty-fifty.

Very little has changed in 100 years. You're surely aware of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, a major star who was charged with manslaughter in 1921. He finally received a measure of justice when he was not only acquitted in 1922 but received a public apology from the jury after having been prosecuted on little more than rumor, innuendo and inference, but it took three criminal trials to achieve that outcome. Even fully vindicated, however, his performing career was destroyed and, for the remaining eleven years of his life, he was able to work only as director and writer of short subjects under the invented name of William B. Goodrich (his own not-so-private play on words: will be good).

I don't think Spacey's roles were any real factor in the public's estimation of him.  It was the fact that many more allegations by others against him were made after Rapp spoke up.

The case can be made that the success of pretty much any marquee-level performer depends upon the good graces of the ticket-buying public, but elements of corporate skittishness and bottom-line protection can't be disregarded in instances of scandal. Decisions based upon those factors (and aided by sensationalistic press reportage) have more often than not been made in executive suites and boardrooms before the public has even had an opportunity to vote with their pocketbooks.

Yes, what you say about juries is correct - I was just mentioning the emotional reaction of people to various criminal charges in general- not related to juries (which I have been on) I keep forgetting that a person has to be explicit about everything on a message board or they get misunderstood easily and assumed to say that which they didn't say.